we agree to disagree

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan(Australia), Jan 4, 2009 at 00:24

Bayezid writes , shouring in boldface for attention:

>>Why do you find it a thin line? 'Infidels' certainly don't. "

and thats why they are called kafirs. the thin line i mentioned is the partition that seperates the possibilites we are seeing around us (whihc many would call rational) and the possibilites there exist beyond our knowledge, and also those which can be conceived by the mind vaguely. (the very mention of which earns only sour disapporoval and criticism, and hence coined the term irrational)"

What you are suggesting boils down to saying that only Muslims are capable of abstract thought. This is not worthy of putting forward as an hypotheses. In fac - if more Muslims WERE capable of abstract thought and actually used that ability - they would be able to see themselves as others see them - and act more tolerantly.

"....... a kafir also denies the ORIGINATOR of all possibilities."

>>

There you go again in your arrogance - insulting the generic 'infidels' of your imagination. Who only exist in your imagination. You are dirtying your own nest. Is this what you get taught in the madrassas? The proof is in the pudding - the results from the 'Infidel's infinitesmally small mind ' (made by 'Allah' ) has outstripped the results of Muslim thinking by several factors of ten."

".....as before, the kafir loses patience and so spews cliches designed as a means of last resort to refuting the muslim opposition. laughable."

Breaking your world up into Muslim and kafir, us and them, the good and the bad. Creating duality where you say only unity really exists. I have not lost patience nor am I 'spewing cliches'. You have a concept about how people who do not share your worldview think and are. The concedpt and the reality do not coincide. You then try to belittle or criticise your own imagnation of these people. You are not criticising the reality. You are dirtying your own mental/emotional nest . That is an analogy, whether it is a cliche is not relevant.

"......besides, strongly insisting on the kafirs intellectual superiority over that of the muslims without any valid proof is further testament of his short temper."

Why do you think using obvious facts to make a point has anything to do with temper? The points made were quite obvious. Muslims have done little in the world to actually improve life for any one other than Muslims themselves - and then only to a limited degree. I can undertsand you gettin offended on this point - because you've bought into the whole Muslim thing 100%.

>>The fact is we live in infinity! And you have a symbolic representation of everything you think you know and are aware of. You comunicate your thoughts in your interior world with other people."

".......if you do agree we live in infinity with a myriad of so many possibilites, why do you find it hard to believe in the first place that the ORIGINATOR of possibilites can communicate to human beings via a book and a prophet ?"

Of course we live in infinity. Who can dispute that? People who understood and were completely merged with their original true nature and universal consciousness made statements from a point of view of 100% clarity. I do not believe, based on what is written in the Koran and the Surah's and hadiths about Mohammed's life - that he was onbe of those persons. I am free to hold that belief. And you should not feel the need to get offended if I - or anyone else do not believe what you believe. You could learn to trust 'Allah' that everything is Ok and we are all where we need to be.

>>Muslims throw their arms up in the air and say it is all 'Allahs;' will and go on in their fatalistic dreaming. Leaving it to everyone else to make real and significant discoveries in all fields of endeavour, especially but not limted to technology. Tell me, look around your house , along your street - and name anything you see that was invented by Muslims - other than of course burkahs, hejabs and Korans.

".....thats the idea of the muslim in the kafirs mind actually. therefore this supposition does not hold enough weight. if ALLAH intended muslims to be fatalists, then im sure HE wouldnt have told us to keep trying or to keep striving for the better. "

Good, well, prove me wrong. I'm just going on results so far. Other co-religionists of yours agree with similar statements:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1824455.stm

"........and muslims arent inventors. "

Russians have a proverb - '........know the breed, know the dog'. Some people and races and cultures are good at some things - others at other things.

"they are simply slaves of ALLAH."

well, if that is their self-image and that's the concept they want to go with - then good luck to them.But don't expect much improvement to come from inside the Muslim world.

".......and invention need not necessarily bring about the most ideal changes all the time."

but you must admit that The Net, computers, TV, DVD, telephone, modern medicines etc etc are great eh?

>>GI wrote:

'Infidels' KNOW 'reality' has everything to offer - that's why you are right now using 'infidel' invented computers and 'infidel' communication networks and for that matter the language of 'infidels' , to vainly try to prove fantasies to other people which you've accepted as reality because of the cultural milieu you've been born into.

Perhaps you could ask 'Allah' to give you an insight into your arrogance for this new year. Start with a clean slate . The intelligent thing to do would be to admit you don't know everything. Entertain the idea 'what if I'm wrong'? Just silently, quietly to yourself. No one need know, nothing to get embarrassed about. Don't be so prejudiced towards new ideas just because they come from cultures and races you don't approve of."

".... yet another proof of your temper. not to mention youve swerved way off the point. lol"

No, again, no temper. You must understand if you met me , you'd find it's extremely hard to get me angry.You'd have to do something very bad to get that sort of reaction from me. I had not swerved away from the point - the point was that I said Muslims are fatalistic in general whilst non-Muslms are not.

"......and as for the so called inventions,"

there you go again trying to belittle your imagined 'opponent... not 'so-called' inventions - REAL inventions'.

"......someone else wouldve probably done it if you people havent."

but the fact is they didn't did they?

"...who knows, you couldve stolen from someone too."

could be - examples needed though? And others could have stolen off us too .

".....wuld you rather talk to me in arabic?"

Not at all - but what has that got to do with anything? You would realise it is unlikely for a person whose first language is English would have the need for or desire to learn to speak arabic. Why have you felt a need to - other than it increases your power base in your Mulsim society?

BTW, I think arabic is a horrible sounding language - not because of any anti-Muslim bias - I have thought that always. There are a couple of languages in that category - but that is purely my opinion -from my ego. The same as you thinking you are clever for knowing how to speak Arabic

"......thats quite nice of you but its not soemthing your english speaking brain would cope up with.

No, you are correct , my English-speaking brain would NOT come up with speaking to you in Arabic. The same as your Bengali speaking brain would not come up with taliking to me in German. But what is your point. What has this got to do with 'Allah'?

"................besdies, before the colonial times, you came to us for the learning, and since you couldnt toelrate"

Where did 'we' come to 'us;' for your learning - given that you couldn't have spoken English etc - and given the well-established fact that there were non-Islamic learning centres throghout Europe and Russia in the Middle Ages. And the ONLY thing of real worth the arab/Muslims had was the numbering system which included the all important ZERO - something the arabs got from Hindus in INDIA in the first place,. They did not invent it. Europe's only problem was that is was under the yoke of the Roman numbering system which held sway for 1500 years. It was clumsy and archaic and useless for doing any sorts of calculations. Once Fibonacci saw the use of the Indian numerals in Algeria - and took that system back to Rome - things exploded. So you could attribute some of Europes sluggishness to the leftovers of another totalitarian system. Not Islam - but Rome.

"......that, you had to invade our lands and forcibly change the administrative medium from arabic and farsi to english. "

Rome fought against Persia, Scythians fought against Persia, Alexander the Great fought against Afghans. each of those disagreements left their mark on the various cultures. The British as I pointed out left a lot of very good things in their wake - the legal and justice system, health system, educational system, tarsnport system and railways

You are able to converse in the English language - which is pretty much the universal language - definitely for science and business. You can talk to Muslims in Malaya, Indonesia etc - in a common language which many in those countries would have as a second language. Why are you griping? What have the british - or other Europeans done to you persoanlly that upsets you? Nothing? My ancestors countries have been at war with the English too at various times. Do I hate the British? No.

"we were not eager to learn your obscure language back then.there you go, a little bit of your ancestors achievements."

But you are now right? And isn't this in contradiction with your statements two responses ago that English was useful and efficient language? You change your mind often. I wonder where you get that from.

>>Can't help being petty can you? "

"........well let me guess. you call yourself an infidel and you reason with your own bias. i simply pointed out that you couldnt have chosen a better name."

You stated 'infidel' means 'one who veils the truth'. You are giving it your own definition. Your definition is incorrect. The ENGLISH word 'Infidel' comes from the Latin word for 'faith' - 'fides'. It just means 'unfaithful'. Muslims have used it in a derogatory fashion to deride and describe people who do not have faith in what Muslims believe (or think they believe) . I chose the pseudonym Grand Infidel as a point of irony.

>>Over 1000 years - they would have been able to detect a slight shift in the position of the star matrix WITHOUT TELESCOPES as seen from earth - had they been able to create and keep accurate records. But they did not. Nobodies fault. Why would you unless you were the keenest of amatuer astronomers?"

".....and i say it again, i see how you deserve your namesake. detecting slight shifts in galactic alignments with the planets and their relation to the sun in return is not something the human eye detects. i do admire your doggedness to prove a point, but a frantic choice of words to suggest a feat not humanly possible is just unacceptable."

It is not unaccpetable at all What I said is - IF they had kept accurate records i.e. diagrams -not relying on the human eye they would have been able to dect that slight shift over 1000 years. The fact that they did not is neither here nor there - but if they had - they would have been able to detect the shift.

>>They meant that the sun and planets - when seen from earth trace a roughly circular arc. That is ALL they meant. To claim anything else is to beggar belief. The Arabs NEVER claimed the Sun was travelling on a 220 million year trip around an imaginary point in the centre of the galaxy.

"............no one cares what the arabs claimed. we were talking about what the quran claims. and the quran claims 1400 years ago that the sun has a spherical orbit. the only time the sun makes an orbit is when its solar apexing. lol. a phenomenon we came to know of recently."

100 years ago. If the Koran claims the Sun has a spherical orbit thaen that should ring alarm bells for you. It does NOT have a sperical orbit.

".....surely, people did not know about the suns spherical path back then. and neither id they know thatthe earth was egg shaped."

And surely, they don't know about the Sun's spherical path now. And again - another alarm bell should go off - the Earth is NOT egg shaped. It is spherical - but with a slight flattening at the poles.` It is more spherical than ovoid.

>>Of course they did - when viewed from the earth - it traces a roughly circular arc - the circle becoming larger the closer you are to the poles. They were extremely aware of this phenomenom in high latitudes - Russia's arctic coast, siberia, Sacndinavia, the UK. in fact that's how they were able to accurately predict that these bodies rose and set at different locations at different times of the year. If you've ever spent a night out under the stars - yo should have noticed that the whole sky seems to revolve around and imaginary point - north of you are in the northern hemisphere and south if you are in the southern hemisphere of course. This apparent passage of the stars is circular. The ancients knew that the planets travelled faster than the stars - and thought they had circular orbits.

".....you said the anceints figured out the circular path of the sun and so tried to use this to neutralize the claim of the quran that the sun pursues a spherical course. but does not that also mean that these highly intelligent and observant ancients also noticed the 'S' shaped path of the moon? yes, thats right, the moon does not seem to move in a sphericl path, but in an 'S' shaped path. "

You've said only the Sun moves in a spherical path - which it does not. The Moon - as seen from Earth - moves in a series of decreasing and increasing arcs - the apparent size of which depends on which latitude you live in. It traces a different path each day - so of course it would not be a constant - which was always rising in a certain spot and always setting in a certain spot.

"..... notice what ALLAH says ,"It is He Who created night and day and the sun and moon, each one swimming in a sphere. (Qur'an, 21:33)"

But it is NOT a sphere. It is called the plane of the eliptic.

"....so clearly, the quran was referring to the actual revolutions made by both the sun and the moon, and not their apparent motion from the earth (which is as a result of the earths rotation). the moon revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, and the sun revolves in a solar apex. that is the motion of the sun ALLAH is talking about here."

But it's not 'clearly' at all. If I had asked you - as a Muslimn in say the year 1000AD - what that passage meant -you'd say it was talking about the Sun and Moon in their apparent dailt travels around the Earth.

But as we are not in 1000AD, you've left out the other major factor which I pointed out last time - that all galaxies are receding from each other apidly - therefore the Sun's true motion does NOT resemble a sphere or aeven an orbit in a plane - it resembles a high;y elongated spiral. Why didn't the Koran go that one step further - thereby helping to clinch the argument by Muslims - and hinting at some possible undertsanding of galactic physics.

"........please let me know what you think abt this now in an unbiased and unprejudiced way."

I was going to make the same request of you..

".....again, how anceint are you talking about? because no one figured out that the earth moves around the sun until the sixteenth centruy scientifically. before that people simply thought that the earth was static and things moved around it. let alone the ancients know anything about the movement of the entire solar system itself. they dint even know that earth was included inside the solar system. in fact, your so called ancients did noteven know if the earth was round or not. the accepted view of those times was that the earth was flat."

The Greeks DID know the earth was round. They deduced this from the shapes of the Sun and Moon - and the shape of the shadow the earth made on the Moon in a solar eclipse. Early mariners were well aware of the curvature of the earth because tghe shape of the horizon it is so apparent out at sea.

but ALLAH speaks about the earths rotation in the quran

'.....He created the heavens and the earth with true (wisdom) He rolls the night over the days and rolls the day over thenight, He has subdued the sun and the moon. All running for an appointed time. Is He not the Mighty, the Forgiver. (39/5)"

.......We have night and day . The sun and moon exist. Nothing lasts forever. These sort of statements are in the Old Testament. They are not uniqie to islam.

".....In describing the rolling the night over the day the Arabic word, ‘Yukawwar' has been used. It means to coil or to roll on an axis, the word proves the circular movement of a thing. As the day and the night occur on planet Earth, therefore, the word ‘Yukawwar' proves it being globular, and that it is moving on its axis. "

The night doesn't have an axis, nor does the day . What it is saying is just that day and night roll into one another - time after time. Just like the days of your life.

"..... Further coiling or rolling of a thing happens only on a thing, which has some circular shape. "

Untrue. Ever heard of an eccentric cam? Do you know how exhaust valves work in an engine?

"......Thus, due to a rolling of the earth on its axis from west to east, continually a part of it gradually faces the sun whereas the other part of it hides from the sun. In this way, day and night are continually happening."

I hope this hasn't exhausted the depths of your understanding of the motions of planetary bodies in orbits. We take this statement for granted. No need to explain.

>>GI wrote:

YOu are confusing yourself - it doesn't return to a "critical position which is necessary for the proper functioning of the solar system."

"......and by that it is simply meant that the sun retains the same line of orbit in relation to the entire solar system. it diligently sticks to its path very much like a monorail. i did not in any way say that in the qurn it is suggestd that the sun moves in a circle inside he solar sphere. the sun, very curiously, maintains the sme distance between the planets and the moons at every cycle in makes. never for once does that go wrong."

That is simple Newtonian physics - the 3rd law of motion. It's GRAVITY. We are subjected to it, planets are subjected to it, stars are subjected to it and galaxies (sometimes) are sujected to it.

"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. (Qur'an, 36:38).the resting place is a rough and narrow translation of the word mustaqarr. this means an appointed place . or a place of finality. .."

As you know - I say the resting place it is talking about is its apparent resting place on the western horizon - which would have been clear to arabian desertt dwellers. remember these people lived in a world of Jinns and genies, Buraks, dragons etc etc . They have no need of knowing about the solar axis.

a place where itll ultimately go. not a place that it goes to every day."

and why would it be talking about an event billions of years in the future?

".....the solar system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per second."

You mean it is moving towards that point - but I guess you could say eveloving as everything subject to time evolves. If you've read that fact - and I have no doubt that it could be true - does that further complicate the solar axis motion ? The solar system is travelling in pretty much a circular orbit around the galactic centre - as are all the other stars. Is what you're now stating that we are moving in another direction as well simultaneously? I suppose you mean we are heading in a direction where Alpha Lyrae is today - and when we get there alpha Lyrae will have moved on as well.

>>

In your desperation to prove you are right you are now making false statements. Knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome was preserved in many locations throughout Europe and Russia in the Middle Ages."

"........this time i will not waste my breath in this senseless prattle about an established fact.....since youre fond of wikipeida, and so am i, lets go there and have a look see."

To a much lesser degree than the Koran Wikipedia is definitely NOT established facts

I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information. Everything you read in Wikipedia is not necessarily true - it always should be checked against a few other sources. Someone I know to prove just this point created a page recently that described himself as Germany's greatest living guitarist. It sayed up there for about a week .

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Name

Email Address (optional)

Title of Comments

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Mark my comment as a response to we agree to disagree by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".